4 ms·

> One way to make it more fair is to make it cheaper, and [one] way to do that is to reduce its complexity. You've made a good case against that solution. But

> One way to make it more fair is to make it cheaper, and [one] way to do that is to reduce its complexity. You've made a good case against that solution. But I remain far from convinced that there's not another solution, like having the lawyers of both sides be salaried employees of the state.

marcoperaza 11y ago
You want to make it fair by prohibiting people from paying for a better defense? So because some people can't afford private lawyers, an unfortunate state of affairs that public defenders exist to remedy, private lawyers should just be banned outright? The independent legal profession is a cornerstone of our free society. My lawyer shouldn't have to be on the payroll of the people trying to imprison me. Lawyers try to do a good job because it improves their reputation and wins them more clients. You don't make society better by reducing the quality of everything to the lowest common denominator.
- knodi123 11y ago
  > You don't make society better by reducing the quality of everything to the lowest common denominator. A common denominator is the only way to make things fair. You pointed out the conflict of interest; very well, that's a good point. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The system we currently have is so vulnerable to corruption, that it wouldn't be hard to make something more fair.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    > A common denominator is the only way to make things fair. This is how you destroy civilizations. The Soviet Union and Cuba come to mind as places that tried to make society more fair by equally distributing poverty and oppression. You make society better by pulling the bottom up, not by pushing the top down.
    - knodi123 11y ago
      That's ridiculous. I never said "limit both sides to a budget of $10." I said same, or same-ish. Eliminating the massive disparity in justice that unlimited money can buy you is not going to "destroy civilization", and I don't have much respect for people who have to use hyperbolic threats of catastrophe to try and scare people away from a point.
      - marcoperaza 11y ago
        I'm only taking your thinking to its logical conclusion. Lots of things about our society aren't fair, but trying to make them all fair would just make us all worse off. What's wrong with letting people pay for a better defense? How does what I spend on my lawyer affect the services that a public defender provides for someone else? Your argument is rooted in envy, not in an attempt to make anyone better off. All you propose is to make some people worse off so that the system can meet your criteria of fairness.
        knodi123 11y ago
        > but trying to make them all fair would just make us all worse off Lots of ideas look ridiculous if you take them to ridiculous extremes. I'd feel silly if I had suggested a contitutional amendment requiring absolutely everything in the world to be absolutely fair in every way. Boy, I'd have egg on my face then. It's easy to mock a straw man for looking silly, but it says a lot more about the one doing the mocking. > How does what I spend on my lawyer affect the services that a public defender provides for someone else? That's idiotic. In a contest between two people, one person having an unlimited budget absolutely makes a big difference. And you know this, because that was the point of your second sentence. > Your argument is rooted in envy Grow up. As someone who is actually pretty well off, and who has never been to court, I'm pretty confident in saying you don't know what the hell you're talking about. A desire to help the downtrodden doesn't mean I'm green with envy. You're just insulting a caricature you've drawn in your own mind with no relation to reality.
        11y ago
  - rayiner 11y ago
    It's worth bearing in mind that rich people play an important role in restraining the power of government. Our founding fathers were, after all, the wealthy elite of their time. Despots and dictators crack down on wealthy people who do not fall in line, and guaranteeing independent legal representation (which the Constitution does) is a bulwark against such overreach.
pdabbadabba 11y ago
There's a lot going on here. Partly, I think we're conflating having the best possible defense with having a fair trial. The latter probably does not require the former and, in any case, it is probably not possible under any reasonable system to provide the former for everyone. I think many defendants do receive fair trials, whether they can afford representation or not--though this does not mean their representation could not have been better. In fact, today, for poor defendants, the lawyers on both side are already salaried state employees. Moreover, federal defenders and some state public defenders (particularly in big cities) are actually very good. Believe it or not, these are highly coveted jobs, despite the dismal pay and stressful work. But that doesn't mean it isn't still possible to go hire an even better lawyer. And, when your life is on the line, this is just what people will do if they can possibly afford it. This will result in disparities, but it's unclear how we could prevent this short of preventing people from hiring private attorneys. This seems like a non-starter, so it's probably better to focus our resources on making sure everyone's representation is adequate, than on making sure everyone's representation is the same. But the other problem, of course, is that, although many public defenders are actually extremely gifted, their offices don't receive nearly enough funding. This means that, although it is possible for a given defendant to receive good representation (and some do), in the aggregate public defenders offices simply cannot properly do all the work that needs to be done. This is, in theory, an easy problem to solve, but unfortunately, there is little public interest in solving it. Prosecuting criminals is popular. Defending them is not. (Of course, the whole point is that not all defendants are criminals, and we need good lawyers to help the system distinguish between the two. But that's not the message that sticks with people, for some reason.)
- knodi123 11y ago
  so, it sounds like you're saying we could get a "pretty good" or maybe "good enough" solution with nothing more complicated than a drastic bump in funding to public defenders' offices?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - 11y ago

marcoperaza 11y ago

You want to make it fair by prohibiting people from paying for a better defense? So because some people can't afford private lawyers, an unfortunate state of affairs that public defenders exist to remedy, private lawyers should just be banned outright? The independent legal profession is a cornerstone of our free society. My lawyer shouldn't have to be on the payroll of the people trying to imprison me. Lawyers try to do a good job because it improves their reputation and wins them more clients. You don't make society better by reducing the quality of everything to the lowest common denominator.

knodi123 11y ago
> You don't make society better by reducing the quality of everything to the lowest common denominator. A common denominator is the only way to make things fair. You pointed out the conflict of interest; very well, that's a good point. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The system we currently have is so vulnerable to corruption, that it wouldn't be hard to make something more fair.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  > A common denominator is the only way to make things fair. This is how you destroy civilizations. The Soviet Union and Cuba come to mind as places that tried to make society more fair by equally distributing poverty and oppression. You make society better by pulling the bottom up, not by pushing the top down.
  - knodi123 11y ago
    That's ridiculous. I never said "limit both sides to a budget of $10." I said same, or same-ish. Eliminating the massive disparity in justice that unlimited money can buy you is not going to "destroy civilization", and I don't have much respect for people who have to use hyperbolic threats of catastrophe to try and scare people away from a point.
    - marcoperaza 11y ago
      I'm only taking your thinking to its logical conclusion. Lots of things about our society aren't fair, but trying to make them all fair would just make us all worse off. What's wrong with letting people pay for a better defense? How does what I spend on my lawyer affect the services that a public defender provides for someone else? Your argument is rooted in envy, not in an attempt to make anyone better off. All you propose is to make some people worse off so that the system can meet your criteria of fairness.
      - knodi123 11y ago
        > but trying to make them all fair would just make us all worse off Lots of ideas look ridiculous if you take them to ridiculous extremes. I'd feel silly if I had suggested a contitutional amendment requiring absolutely everything in the world to be absolutely fair in every way. Boy, I'd have egg on my face then. It's easy to mock a straw man for looking silly, but it says a lot more about the one doing the mocking. > How does what I spend on my lawyer affect the services that a public defender provides for someone else? That's idiotic. In a contest between two people, one person having an unlimited budget absolutely makes a big difference. And you know this, because that was the point of your second sentence. > Your argument is rooted in envy Grow up. As someone who is actually pretty well off, and who has never been to court, I'm pretty confident in saying you don't know what the hell you're talking about. A desire to help the downtrodden doesn't mean I'm green with envy. You're just insulting a caricature you've drawn in your own mind with no relation to reality.
        11y ago
- rayiner 11y ago
  It's worth bearing in mind that rich people play an important role in restraining the power of government. Our founding fathers were, after all, the wealthy elite of their time. Despots and dictators crack down on wealthy people who do not fall in line, and guaranteeing independent legal representation (which the Constitution does) is a bulwark against such overreach.

pdabbadabba 11y ago

There's a lot going on here. Partly, I think we're conflating having the best possible defense with having a fair trial. The latter probably does not require the former and, in any case, it is probably not possible under any reasonable system to provide the former for everyone. I think many defendants do receive fair trials, whether they can afford representation or not--though this does not mean their representation could not have been better. In fact, today, for poor defendants, the lawyers on both side are already salaried state employees. Moreover, federal defenders and some state public defenders (particularly in big cities) are actually very good. Believe it or not, these are highly coveted jobs, despite the dismal pay and stressful work. But that doesn't mean it isn't still possible to go hire an even better lawyer. And, when your life is on the line, this is just what people will do if they can possibly afford it. This will result in disparities, but it's unclear how we could prevent this short of preventing people from hiring private attorneys. This seems like a non-starter, so it's probably better to focus our resources on making sure everyone's representation is adequate, than on making sure everyone's representation is the same. But the other problem, of course, is that, although many public defenders are actually extremely gifted, their offices don't receive nearly enough funding. This means that, although it is possible for a given defendant to receive good representation (and some do), in the aggregate public defenders offices simply cannot properly do all the work that needs to be done. This is, in theory, an easy problem to solve, but unfortunately, there is little public interest in solving it. Prosecuting criminals is popular. Defending them is not. (Of course, the whole point is that not all defendants are criminals, and we need good lawyers to help the system distinguish between the two. But that's not the message that sticks with people, for some reason.)

knodi123 11y ago
so, it sounds like you're saying we could get a "pretty good" or maybe "good enough" solution with nothing more complicated than a drastic bump in funding to public defenders' offices?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- 11y ago